~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

The Mission?

The over-use of the word ‘mission’ by institutions, not least of education (where goodness knows, it is simple enough), is so familiar that it tends to blind many to its origin in Christianity. Where Islam set out to conquer the world by the sword, that was not Christianity’s way; where Judaism looked forward to a Messiah who would restore the kingdom of Israel, Christianity’s Messiah had already come and had died for his people – which wasn’t at all what the Jews thought was going to happen. Where Hinduism was part of the social structure of Indian life, Christianity was subversive of existing social structures in so far as it did not think they are what life was about. The Romans though the Christians ‘pagan’ because they would not support the cult of the emperor as god, which was simply one of the ways in which Rome encouraged social solidarity in its vast empire. Our individualised, rather protestantised Western society can see the mission of Christianity in terms simply of the relationship of the individual with jesus, but historically that was simply a starting point, not the end point, and that relationship was not privatised, but rather a communal one; men and women were baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but they were baptised into the Church. Early Christianity knew of individuals claiming inspiration from the Spirit, but unless what they said they had been taught corresponded with the teaching of the Apostles, such individuals were treated with caution.

Paul bears eloquent witness to this truth. Until he had seen the representatives of the early church, his teaching was not approved, and we can see by the number of times he emphasises that he really was an ‘apostle’, that suspicion of him in some quarters lingered. You can see why. One moment he was a pharisee of the pharisees, on a mission if extirpate the church, and the next he’s claiming he saw Jesus in a vision – and arguing that men are saved by faith in Jesus alone and do not need to keep kosher or be circumcised. Paul fought his corner, but not by stigmatising others, but by showing to the assembly in jerusalem that the Spirit was leading him as he was leading the rest of them – or at least, if we believe theSpirit leads councils of the Church, that is what we must conclude from the result.

Paul’s mission took him across the Mediterranean world, and the same impulse took St Thomas to India, and in the end, the Gospel to the ends of the world. The mission is to bring mankind to God. For that, it needs not just a set of ‘saved’ individuals’, each arguing over their own personally infallible definition of what the Gospel is – had that been the case Jesus would have had no need to found any church – but a church – a collection of men and women called out from the godless mass surrounding them. Called out to live in a kind of internal exile in this world – permanent strangers in it, loyal to the teaching which descends from the Apostles. Religion is no more than the Latin word for a ‘rule’, and any man who imagines that God’s care begins and ends with him, and that God has provided no rule for his people, so that they can know the truth from fiction, isn’t remembering what Paul told Timothy: ‘the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth’ – there is a pillar, there is a foundation – that is the Church, which is, as they say ‘mission critical’.

Related

About chalcedon451

Post navigation

102 thoughts on “The Mission?”

Hello Chalcedon. Marvelous essay. Very good. Only one point I noticed that needs some clarification maybe. You state that St. Paul’s conversion led him to think that “faith alone,” is what saves one. Ummmmm…………….oooops. The addition of the word “alone” to that passage is not ours if you are referring to Romans 3:28. I know you don’t but could you clarify a little so no one loses their confidence in you? I mean I could do it for you, but your gift of words will say it better. God bless. Ginnyfree.

When I think of a personal spiritual mission given to every soul, baptized and confirmed in the faith, I think of the gift of agape love, given us by our Lord on the Holy Cross, and meant to be sown throughout the world for the Glory of God’s harvest; “reaping where you (God) did not sow, and gathering where you (God) did not scatter seed.” For it is the greatest of paradoxes, that the more Grace and Love that we scatter the more we retain to be sown in this world. To receive, we must give away that which we have. It is the paradox of the investment of the talents given us in Christ’s parable.

So to think that one has simply accepted the gift of salvation from God as though it did not have attendant graces and love (the Talents) is a grave mistake. You are not filled unless you continuously empty yourself: which is True Fulfillment. Thereby those who cannot even use agape love for the sake of Christ or the sake of His Church might want to think about why they are hoarding this gift from the Holy Spirit given them at Baptism and Confirmation. To hoard this Gift from God is to ultimately lose it. To give it away is to fill your vessel with even more Love to give. It is the ultimate paradox of the Christian life and why I think those who hold back from the first return to God for this gift, by denying His own words, will never fully understand what it is to be filled with God’s Grace and Love.

Of course Protestants disagree that Peter is anointed as the Rock(the Rock is Christ) despite scriptural claims which I do not present as an issue here but that if there is a mortal Rock it would be Paul not Peter. And of course Paul would dismiss any first pope designation.

It is true that as a Protestant we read Christ through Paul. But as Catholics, we read Paul through Christ. That seems a fundamental problem we will not be able to smooth over in ecumenical dialogue sadly.

I believe that even though there was no designation or the word Pope being used, Paul understood the primacy of Peter: for Christ had bequeathed that to him and the Apostles were not ignorant of that fact. It was to Peter that Christ instructed to Feed my Sheep not to any others and it was to Peter that he asked Peter, once he had turned, to strengthen his brothers. It is plain for those with eyes to see that Christ picked Peter to lead his Church in all of these words of our Lord. I know of no other than Peter who walked on water, even if only for a moment, in imitation of his Lord. His faith would not be perfect but is anyone’s. He was designated by Christ and therefore he as given a mission that included keeping the Apostles together rather than scattering into individual churches; like this novel idea that it is a Church of Paul. It was Christ’s Church and Peter was given its visible headship by that selfsame Christ.

Hello SF. Nicely said. One thing came to mind while reading it – Paul’s admonishment to several who were doing exactly that in Corinth, clinging to a particular person, rather than Christ: 1 Cor. 1: 10 to 16 – “I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to* Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I give thanks to God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say you were baptized in my name. I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.”

Paul wanted no divisions and there were. He is so upset with their rivalry and division, that he’d rather they weren’t even Baptised! because they are already failing in the Mission of following Christ! It is a sharp rebuke and good reminder of what leaves the true mission of Christ behind – competition and fails the principle of unity. This theme is found elsewhere too.

Just saying that Paul has such a crucial impact not do deny Peter’s rank(for lack of better term). Does 1st Century Christianity take root and is theology established without Paul? SERV “like this novel idea that it is a Church of Paul. ” Well that isn’t new or novel . Do we have a New Testament without Paul? Do the early churches have a guidebook without Paul? Who speaks to us from then to our time – Peter or Paul? Who posits direction that the Messiah is not the sole possession(corporate property) of the Jews – Peter or Paul? Is Christ’s appearance to Paul an anointment less consequential than the anointment of the Disciples that walked with Jesus? One may quote the Rock conversation but is not Paul the footing, lentil, beams, concrete and columns of Christ’s church. I certainly don’t mean to imply that it is Paul’s church. Isn’t there an historical tipping point when RCC moves from Petrine to Pauline ? Or is it all merely that any suggestion re the diminished primacy of Peter undermines that pope stuff claims? I suppose it is inappropriate to present that there is a pecking order among the 12 + 1 but it is Paul that repeatably wears out his shoes doing the footwork that would impress Marco Polo himself.

Hello Carl. It might help if you read the Scripture passage that I cited to SF: 1 Cor. 1:10 to 17, paying careful attention to these two verses: “I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” The section in the letter to the Corinthians that these verses come from and a few following deal with abuses at Corinth. These are things that needed correction. St. Paul had heard about them, and wrote to them, outlining the mistakes they were making and allowing a path to redemption. They needed to stop doing a few things.
When you asked this: “Isn’t there an historical tipping point when RCC moves from Petrine to Pauline ? ” it came to my mind that perhaps you don’t realize what you are saying. You are speaking as if St. Paul had never said what he said or having said it, no one bothered to obey his wise words and corrected the faulty application of Christian principles. One of the problems at Corinth was exactly that one was saying he was a disciple of Paul and another was saying he was a disciple of Apollos. Your suggestion of a shift in primary spiritual leanings from say, Petrine to Pauline is a macrocosm of the same basic misunderstanding. You’ve taken their problem and magnified it to include the whole church’s practice and morphed it into a following of Peter and one time, and a shift in emphasis to Paul at another. But the truth is we follow Christ. St. Paul’s words were understood and heeded. We don’t divide up the Body into groups so as to make management of the them easier on the leaders. I hope I’ve shed some light on our differences. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Thank you for your insightful reply. I suppose I did a poor job of communication but did not mean to imply the church is not Christ centered. It’s just that Paul gives us so much in writing that is noted as scripture.

Carl many people have had a profound impact on the faith but it didn’t make them Pope. Many others, mostly saints, recieved mystical callings to the Church and it did not make them the Pope either. That Paul was the first theologian and a good evangelizer is certain. That John was more of a mystical bent and perhaps the first mystical saint of the Church does not make him the Pope any more than it did Paul. St. Augustine or St. Thomas did not become the Pope because they developed sound theology and wrote a lot. It has nothing to do with how far one travels to spread the Gospel. Some of the Apostles wrote a lot (none more than Paul). Though that is not surprising as he was the most learned of them. It still would not make him Pope. To accept your thesis one must immediately say that Matthew butchered his grammar and really meant to say something that he didn’t say – and that what he did say was merely understood incorrectly. These claims are simply specious and clever methods to reject that which nobody rejected in the early Church. Why, did these Christians keep a record of the succession of Peter rather than Paul? We have the list of Popes that are easily pulled up on the internet. We have always remembered them and will do so until Christ comes again.

He would be right to, Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock, then said ‘on this rock I build my church’ – Protestants may not like that Jesus said it, but if he didn’t mean that why did no one notice for 1500 years?

Lest we forget Christ’s next sentence: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” So who did He give the keys to? Himself? The subject of the sentences all refer to Peter (Simon Bar Jona) unless the writers did not know how to construct grammatically correct sentences.

Hello again Carl. This is an application of a spiritual principle that isn’t part of our Catholic understanding of the Keys to the Kingdom. While it is true that each of us finds spiritual lights that guide us as a metaphor for keys that unlock the mysteries of Christ and things divine, we know these aren’t the Keys to the Kingdom that Christ was referring to regarding the events recorded in Scriptures for us that occurred at Caesarea Philippi. These are two very distinct things and they aren’t interchangeable to us as Catholics.

Is 22:22 “I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open.” This is the office of the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Church representing Christ Himself for the governance of His Church foretold of by the Prophet Isaiah. He is the “prime minister” of the Kingdom. Think of the office given to Joseph by Pharaoh in Egypt – second only to the Pharaoh himself. So it is for the Office of the Pope, no matter who holds it. It is part of God’s plan of Salvation for us and is a necessary Office in His Church. Joseph’s stewardship of the household of Pharaoh’s household and the entire kingdom of Egypt is a type and is part of the over all typology of Scripture. We like to say that the new Testament lies hidden in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New. This is part of the mindset we maintain when reading the Scriptures, like the lenses we use in our glasses. It isn’t the entire guiding principle for all of the Old Testament, but it is very important when trying to unlock the mystery of Christ contained in the pages. For instance, St. John calling Jesus the Lamb of God. Jesus didn’t appear all white and fuzzy and start walking on all fours after that. It is a type. He is the Lamb of God who will be slain in sacrifice. This happens literally. If it was only a figure of speech, Christ wouldn’t have needed to die. No, as you know He did die. So there that is one example. I hope I this helps you understand our differences better. And if you don’t mind me saying so, typology is a key to understanding the principle of Christ being the fulfillment of all prophecy. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Whenever men have a reason to reinterpret the Bible, they do it; the question is why do they start looking 🙂 Hope the Presbyterian Church is working well for you and your father and son, Carl – it looked a welcoming place. And, at the end of the day in this world, that’s what we need.

Thank you. Seems like they have plans for me to do a little secretarial work and custodian work and maybe landscaping too. Many decades ago when I considered going to seminary and to become a custodian of the church, I did not think “custodian” was going to mean “janitor without pay”.

The Pope apologises for things that were wrong. Last time I looked, that was what Jesus recommended. I see you have no comments to make on the substance. I wonder why? Keep running – you can run, but you can’t hide. Just as Paul was goign to `damascus to persecute, you came here thinking you will convert us to Boscoism. You won’t, but in the end, the Spirit will convert you to Christ’s Church.

You seem to either forget or don’t believe. I know Jesus. I don’t need a religion. I let Jesus deal with me. For lack of a better word. My salvation is between me and the Lord. His rod and staff, they comfort me, and whip me as needed. What need have I of pedophile catholic priests? lesbian nuns. Gold cups. I didn’t want to be a holy roller, but I cant unmeet god. I leave the pedophile priests and lesbian nuns to the idolatrous Diana worshipers. They did the same thing to good brother Paul and his friend. In Ephesus, they became enraged and for 2 solid hours chanted “great is Diana”, then they sought to kill Paul for messing up their goddess.

It also seems to me that a distinction between mission and commission might be discussed here for I think it is relevant in the way Catholics think: mission is being sent but a commission is a delegation of authority (in the proper archaic sense) which is given to the Church and may be given, in turn to missionaries, fraternities, religious orders and the like. Much could be said about both.

If Diana is all important, how come she isn’t extolled in the new test? There isn’t enough about her to fill a fortune cokkie. By the way, I found the 3 books good brother Mark Shea gave me. I have notes taken. One day ill post them

Let’s see, why is she so important? How many woman in histroy have given birth to the Saviour of the World? One, Mary. How many people stood by Him at the foot of the Cross? Clue, Mary his mother was one. That would be why. The Church Jesus founded, the Church which told us what books were Scripture, thought her important. It may not matter in Boscoism, but in Christianity it does.

27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Wow, every broad was named Mary.

but if you Diana worshipers notice some of the apostles were there too. Does that give them thones in heaven? The other Marys, are they givers of all grace too, just because they were there? Mary is blessed and so are a lot of people. Bowing to her graven image is idolatry. Its time to seek the invisible god Christ. get off your knees from befor the plaster cast of Diana.

Where, apart from crackpot sites, do you get the idea Mary, mother of Christ, is the same as Diana, a goddess mother of no one. Bless you, you will fall for utter nonsense and treat it like the word of Jesus, but the word of Jesus you will deny.

He calls her woman because she is a woman – go figure. I know no one who worships Diana, but I do know some very badly informed people who are stupid enough to believe websites. How’s Boscoism going? Anyone become a Boscoist yet?

I am aware that you don’t go for the Diana worship, because you have a modicum of smarts in you. But the rest of the catholics do worship Diana. Even you admitted it once. The Roman state run religion included many of the gods of the peoples all around to entice them to join their new state run religion. they renamed their gods with biblical names to smooth the transition. This is well known. Semiramis is now baby Jesus and mother. Diana is now Mary. the ephesians were died in the wool Diana worshipers. many were in Rome. Rome was top heavey in Diana worspers. The state run religion changed the name plaque on Diana to Mary, to placate you Diana worshipers. Come on…you idolaters still bow befor the female graven image. Gimme a break. I only look stupid. You idolaters still bow befor Diana, and sit there and tell me you don’t worship Diana

I am glad you chess playing is better than your history. By the time Christianity became the official religion why would anyone have needed to be worshipping Diana? What do you think everyone had been doing for 350 years before? Do you think they were all so stupid that no one noticed? All those people who died rather than worship false gods, did they not notice? Osrry Bosco, even by your standards, this is laughable. Guess next you’ll be quoting Ben Hur to prove the Romans had film because you saw film of chariot racing!

To you it sounds stupid, because it is. You remind me of my mother. She didn’t believe anything. if it wasn’t on a grocery store shelf, she didn’t believe it existed. Diana is renamed Mary. Does the name plaque matter? Its a female queen of heaven. Don’t insult my small intelligence. Catholicism is the religion of a female queen of heaven. Ask anyone in here. The female is the be all and end all. Giver of ALL grace. Co redeemer.
The ones who died at the hands of your state run religion died because they believed in Jesus, not some female deity. One day I hope these words sink into someone here. take a look at where you trust your salvation. is it to a cult of a female, or is it with the invisible Christ?

No, Catholicism is the place where the church founded by Christ to be built on the rock of Peter has been for 2000 years. As usual, you quote words out of context and with no understanding. Let us take co-redemptrix, which, incidentally, is not a dogma of the Church. What does it mean? It means that though her cooperation with God, Jesus came into the world. Except for Boscoites, who seem to think God was a rapist, the rest of us believe Mary cooperated voluntarily.

Christ is not invisible, he is visible every time we communicate with him. You have your invisible, non-existent one-man religion of Boscoism, me and mine, we’ll stick with the Jesus of history.

I am very fond of Barcelona, and its wonderful Museum. I must have seen this Batllo Majesty crucifix for the first time when I was about 16 – and fell in love with it then. It is mid 12th century, and the Byzantine and Moorish influences are very striking.

All there is Matthew 16, Bosco. I guess, being rather uneducated, you imagine that ‘Peter’ was a name? It wasn’t. There is no record of anyone using the Aramaic for stone, kefas, as a real name before this. Kefas, (Grk Petros) means rock. So, go read what jesus is saying – ‘you are rock, and on this rock’ – poor Bosco. Wartch the vid, it’s easier on your limited capabilities.

Hello Bosco. You are your own rock, your own interpreter of Scripture and your own savior. You don’t need anyone else. Just you and your made up image of Jesus and your Bible. You are NOT a saved individual, not by a long shot and anyone you share with can see this. Why do you hate yourself so much that you deny yourself the works that actual reading of the Scripture with and open mind and heart can accomplish in you? You are your won worst enemy in this regard Bosco. You should stop yourself. God loves you. You should treat yourself better. Jesus died for you. He laid down His life so you could be redeemed. Yet you deny Him all the time and slap us around verbally all the time. God bless. Ginnyfree.

The fact is, that it does sound like what you say it sounds like. the first time I read it, my though was…” gee, this can be mistaken real easy” Mind you I was 16 and never read the bible befor, but the holy ghost was with me.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me

Jesus talks about himself being the Christ, not about Peter being any Rock of Ages. Why don’t you Diana worshipers keep going on with the passage? Jesus seems to call peter Satan. How come you Diana worshipers don’t keep quoting? Why stop in the middle of the stream?

We do, often, as a sign that even the most faithfil can be wrong. Why do you say Jesus changed Simon’s name to ‘rock’ at that moment? Ws he having a bit of a laugh? Or did he mean what he said? If he meant what he said, why deny him?

Jesus said Peter is Satan. I don’t deny him. Your church is built on Satan. That much is obvious to the people being burned to death. Jesus didn’t recommend burning anyone to death. But the church Peter the Satan does. I think only once here in this site did anyone even remotely touch on mat 16;23

You are denying Jesus. Jesus accused Peter of being Saran when he tried to get in the way of God’s will. By that token, he would call you it, too. Do quote me where the Catholic Church, as opposed to the State, burnt people.

No. What I said is true, and as usual, you find the truth hard to swallow because your stomach is full of untruths. For many centuries no one burned people. In the Middle Ages the State started to use it as a means of capital punishment – a bit like some of your States used ‘old sparky’ – and when people were fund guilty of the capital crime of heresy, it was used. Protestant and Catholic States used it. If you don’t like capital punishment, good. As your own country is one of the few in the civilized world to use it, join the campaigns against it. If you approve of it, then quit the crocodile tears.

The first time I was able to vote, my grandma gave me a checklist on what to vote for. One was to vote against the death penalty. I believe I voted against it. personally im for it. But I don’t like the long wait. I say, throw them in a shark tank rite away. No injection There is some big deal rite now in most states about the lack of the proper drug to inject to kill them. idiots. Water. IV them with a fast water drip and they will die from haemolysis.

In which case you can’t be, because Catholicism has always taught that only Jesus saves you. It also believes Jesus when he says he founded a Church on the rock. At the same time he changed the name of Simon bar-Jonah to ‘Rock’. Shame you deny Jesus and try to explain away his words.

All need his mercy. there are two places in the afterlife. One is with god and the other is without god. All men need to come to grips. But, jesus used to be sad that most will die without god. that means most. Look at the guy next to you in the pew. hes going to hell. Do you want to join him?

Bosco, you forgot you told me of your fallen away status. Don’t deny your own Baptism. It left an indelible mark on your poor soul. You can’t undo it. You can renounce it and its Author, but it will accompany you to your particular judgement. The filth of you sins clinging to it will be what Jesus sees. Do you really want that? Repent while there is still time. God bless. Ginnyfree.